the.armenator wrote:Pointing out a slight typo here.(It won't let me attach anything...? So I'll put it in quotes.)"Pssssh... who cares if --------- doesn't have their usual infatuation with *Prosecutor* Edgeworth?"

Um... a little more context for which frame you are referring to would help. I'm not aware of anyone saying quote that in this case. If you want to show an image of the frame, you can take a screenshot of it and host it on a file sharing site or use the upload attachment feature under the submit button.

Spongesonic IN COURT wrote:

Enthalpy wrote:

Spoiler : Bug Report :

It's the same bug with characters disappearing, sometime between yellow suited Payne appearing and Maya calling Phoenix a "loony" after her new defense attorney goes to the wrong courtroom.

Spoiler : :

Goddammit... I'm blaming Try for that, he made that ending...Well, I found what should be the cause of the trouble. Is it fixed?

Spoiler : :

...oops I guess? Leave it to me to break the trial.... again...

DarkNinja505 wrote:

Spoiler : :

I... what is this. I clicked on NO in the first choice for fun, and it got weird. I clicked Ready for the second, it got bizarre. Then pointed out that the knife was Edgeworth's in the first CE, and... wow. This trial has reached a threshold of insanity far beyond the witch trials of PLvsPW.

There is some information in your post that really should be in spoiler tags. If you could, please edit your post and add spoiler a spoiler tag. Anyways, I hope you enjoy the rest of the trial!

After a lot of bug hunting, I finished the game. Thoughts are below the cut, and I alluded to this somewhat on the Discord channel last night.

Spoiler : :

Playing this case gave me a very similar feel to when I played I Wanna Be The Turnabout, an entry from the trolling competition six years ago. It's inspired by I Wanna Be The Guy, and is sadism far past what even Turnabout of Courage can deliver. I was surprised when I made the connection, because this case is not intended to be sadistic in the slightest. After a while, the connection hit me: the similarity wasn't in what they were trying to be, but in the effect it had on me.

The jokes in this trial were hit or miss for me. Maggie's costume switching, calling Pearl "Trucy" and Garbulfunkancle didn't work, but the idea of a dog as a witness for the prosecution did get a laugh out of me, as did Edgeworth's oddly specific denial of recognizign the blade in his testimony. As the trial wore on, the jokes started to wear on me. Is this just not my style of humor? Well, possibly. Humor is notoriously difficult to analyze. Either way, when the jokes became a bore to get through, I was left to plow/lawnmower through the trial in order to get to the true 19th ending. Which reminds me a lot of how I played IWBTT, just trying to make it to the end.

The other connection is in how I played the cross-examination section. Both cases have case logic that is so bizarre that turns into a game of reading the authors' minds. Do we tell the judge we're ready or not? It's a mind-reading exercise. How do we know to prove Larry is the witness by saying the only male (human or otherwise) whose appearance he would compliment is his own? Mind-reading. How do we know that although we couldn't prove the knife was Edgeworth's before, we can now due to a hyper-literal and absurd reading of the description in the Court Record? Mind-reading. This was common throughout the trial and also led me to lawnmower through the case, since I could tell that trying to think through it wouldn't work. I probably could have tolerated this if the jokes worked for me, but they didn't. When you combine those together, it's no wonder that the case reminds me of IWBTT.

One other thing that puzzled me. The early parts of the case seemed to be satirizing AA cliches, like the "I believe in you" speech, but this was dropped by the end of the first testimony. Was there a reason for this, or was the satire never intended at all?

To anybody looking to see if this is worth a play, this isn't a bad case, but it is a hit-or-miss case. Give it 15 minutes, and if you aren't liking it then, you probably won't.

[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson

Enthalpy wrote:After a lot of bug hunting, I finished the game. Thoughts are below the cut, and I alluded to this somewhat on the Discord channel last night.

Spoiler : :

Playing this case gave me a very similar feel to when I played I Wanna Be The Turnabout, an entry from the trolling competition six years ago. It's inspired by I Wanna Be The Guy, and is sadism far past what even Turnabout of Courage can deliver. I was surprised when I made the connection, because this case is not intended to be sadistic in the slightest. After a while, the connection hit me: the similarity wasn't in what they were trying to be, but in the effect it had on me.

The jokes in this trial were hit or miss for me. Maggie's costume switching, calling Pearl "Trucy" and Garbulfunkancle didn't work, but the idea of a dog as a witness for the prosecution did get a laugh out of me, as did Edgeworth's oddly specific denial of recognizign the blade in his testimony. As the trial wore on, the jokes started to wear on me. Is this just not my style of humor? Well, possibly. Humor is notoriously difficult to analyze. Either way, when the jokes became a bore to get through, I was left to plow/lawnmower through the trial in order to get to the true 19th ending. Which reminds me a lot of how I played IWBTT, just trying to make it to the end.

The other connection is in how I played the cross-examination section. Both cases have case logic that is so bizarre that turns into a game of reading the authors' minds. Do we tell the judge we're ready or not? It's a mind-reading exercise. How do we know to prove Larry is the witness by saying the only male (human or otherwise) whose appearance he would compliment is his own? Mind-reading. How do we know that although we couldn't prove the knife was Edgeworth's before, we can now due to a hyper-literal and absurd reading of the description in the Court Record? Mind-reading. This was common throughout the trial and also led me to lawnmower through the case, since I could tell that trying to think through it wouldn't work. I probably could have tolerated this if the jokes worked for me, but they didn't. When you combine those together, it's no wonder that the case reminds me of IWBTT.

One other thing that puzzled me. The early parts of the case seemed to be satirizing AA cliches, like the "I believe in you" speech, but this was dropped by the end of the first testimony. Was there a reason for this, or was the satire never intended at all?

To anybody looking to see if this is worth a play, this isn't a bad case, but it is a hit-or-miss case. Give it 15 minutes, and if you aren't liking it then, you probably won't.

Pretty much. This whole case for me was more exasperating to get through than the other two entries (though I still had some fun moments, like in ending 18 where

but for the most part this was just a collecthaton of endings which you just get to see the true ending but even the true end was a bit blergh to me. The humour itself was more "lolrandom" to me here whereas the other two had more carefully crafted moments, like

Spoiler : Turnabout in Payne and Suffering :

de Killer turning into all sorts of stuff which turns out to be just Payne's delusions

and

Spoiler : Professor Layton and the Heavenly Scheme :

Kristoph covering himself with red cards to not be spotted by Godot.

Overall, my favourite part of the case is definitely the introduction of the prosecution. It's just so beautifully accurate

The judge also has my favourite lines here and steals the show a lot, which I wasn't expecting. Honestly, I like your rendition of him here than in the actual AA games.